Yesterday morning my colleague Ben Scallan attended the Electoral Commission’s announcement of the new constituency boundaries for the next Irish general election. While most of the focus of the event was on who would be voting where, Ben asked a question of more general relevance to the commission: It has been granted significant powers to regulate so-called “misinformation” in Irish election campaigns. If this was a power it needs, we reasoned, then surely it would have examples of the kind of misinformation that it intended to regulate in future elections. Ben asked for such an example, and here is what happened:
The Irish government's new anti-misinformation force, the Electoral Commission, says it has "very extensive powers" to "require the correction or removal of information we believe to be incorrect" – all in an effort to "enhance democracy." Question by @Ben_Scallan #gript pic.twitter.com/nMlixyGM2q
— gript (@griptmedia) August 30, 2023
That the commission does not have examples of the kind of misinformation it intends to correct is hardly shocking if, like me, you are a cynic. It’s quite hard to genuinely shock us cynics.
And yet Mrs. Justice Marie Baker, the Chairperson of the Commission, did indeed manage to shock me at 3.15 in the clip above when she said “we’re also going to have to learn how to deal with the balance between the right to freedom of expression on the one hand, and on the other hand, the right of persons not to be misinformed”.
This is shocking firstly because Mrs. Justice Baker is a judge of the Supreme Court, and should know that while the right to freedom of expression is in the Irish constitution, the right not to be misinformed appears nowhere. Even granting some allowances for the fact that she was speaking off the cuff, it’s objectively remarkable to see a Supreme Court Judge essentially making up a law, and a right, that nobody has ever voted on – and more than that, assuming for herself the right to enforce on everyone else a right or a law that she’s just invented herself.
To do that is one thing – to do it while speaking of “defending democracy”, when democracy is about having the people choose their own laws, is quite another.
Such a right, were it to exist, would be almost entirely unenforceable. Here’s a basic example: If you sincerely believe that Gerry Adams was never a member of the IRA, as Sinn Fein claims, are you misinformed?
Here’s another: If you believe that there are, as Regina Doherty claims, nine genders, are you misinformed? What about if you believe that immigration is too high? What if you believe that the world is secretly run by a cabal of lizards in people suits?
In other words: Who decides what misinformation is?
A vast array of issues in any democracy is open to interpretation: For example, what is the primary cause of the present inflation crisis? Is it the central banks printing too much money, as some economists argue? Is it the war in Ukraine, which suits politicians to argue? Is it the existence of fiat currency, as some bitcoin enthusiasts argue? You could convincingly get three people to argue each of those causes, with a guarantee that at least two of them would be mostly wrong, because the real answer is we can’t be certain.
On a more basic, day to day basis, what about a statement like “tax cuts help the rich and hurt the poor”? That is obviously an opinion, rather than a statement of fact, but it does assert a factual claim which many people would believe, and many others would believe to be wrong. Politics is about deciding what the truth is: That’s why we have elections.
The idea of the “informed voter” is almost entirely a myth. Voters are not informed, and nor can they be fully informed. Asking a voter to adjudicate between a centralised health system and a decentralised one on policy grounds is to ask most people whether they prefer dumbwells to fiddlewhacks, without giving them any definitions of either.
Voters make decisions largely based on trust, and vibes. “Does this sound good”. “Do I trust this person”. “Do they look good on tv, or sound empathetic”.
Politics is also fundamentally a contest of opinions: “Immigration is far too high” is an opinion – there is no way of measuring whether holders of that opinion are correct because everybody has a different definition of “too high”. When you start trying to label some people’s opinions as “misinformation” you are not enhancing democracy, but undermining it.
This is a power that nobody in society should have. There is no right not to be misinformed – there is simply an obligation to inform yourself. That is the voter’s job: If you care about the country and your democracy, take it seriously. If you wish to vote for the fellow who says nationalising the banks and taxing the rich at 99% will fix everything, that’s your right, and you have to live with the consequences.
Everything about the Electoral Commission’s new mandate – which it is already enhancing by itself – speaks to a body that is designed to funnel voters towards particular decisions and away from other decisions. And that it wants to do so by “balancing freedom of speech”.
This is Orwellian stuff, and it should be ferociously resisted.
Loading ...